The Primitive Church and the See of Peter
Introduction and Author's Preface

INTRODUCTION BY THE CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER

Of course we desire to convert all men -- especially our own countrymen, as
loving them best -- to the Catholic Religion. Could it be otherwise? We believe the
Catholic religion to be the one only true religion, founded by Jesus Christ upon
the Rock. We should fail, then, in love for God did we not strive to extend His
Kingdom, which is His Church upon earth; and in love for our neighbour, did we
not endeavor to persuade him to become one of God's liegemen and a sharer with us
in the Divine life of the Faith and of the Sacraments. It is no matter of doubt
or of indifference that is at stake, but absolutely the most vital, the most
personal, the eternal interest of man.

But any kind of conversion will not do. The conversion must be real, genuine,
and based on solid grounds. That is to say, it must rest not only upon
conviction, but upon a right conviction, a conviction rooted in the right
fundamental principle. To come into the Catholic Church simply on account of the
beauty of her ceremonial, the reasonableness of this or that set of doctrines
and practices, or her venerable antiquity and her attractive traditions, or as a mere
refuge from persons or systems that have bred dissatisfaction and distrust, is
to enter the Church without a conviction rooted in the right fundamental
principle.

What is that principle? Simply this: that the Catholic Church is the Divine
Teacher, set up in the world by Jesus Christ, and that our attitude towards her
must be that of a Disciple. The Disciple does not pick and choose according to
his taste, nor, when the Divine Teacher is once accepted, can he be ruled by
private judgment and understanding. Our Lord Himself shows us this by His own
method of procedure. When He had announced, "My flesh is meat indeed, and
My Blood is drink indeed," many said,

"This saying is hard, and who can hear it? And after this many of
His disciples went back and walked no more with Him." Then Jesus said to
the twelve, "Will you also go away?" And Simon Peter answered him,
"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. We have
believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God." (John
6:51ff)

Christ, therefore, gave no countenance to those who would believe only that
which was agreeable to their notion of fitness or possibility. He gave them no explanation of
how His Flesh
and Blood were to be eaten and drunk. He demanded this, and this alone, that
they should recognise the Divine Teacher, and having found Him, that they should
take up their due position as learners or disciples. There was no compromise, no
halting; if unwilling to accept this fundamental principle, the position of a
Disciple, they might all go away, aye, even the twelve.

The vital question, then, is, Where is the Divine Teacher? Some, prompted by
private motives, with subtilty and sophistry, evade the question, or answer it
in a way to leave themselves an escape from the plain obligation of a disciple.
Their aim is to stay as they are. To them the Church is a vast organisation
incapable of articulate speech, or it is made up of branches, each of which has
an independent voice, but without any one living, visible, audible authority to
control the whole.

Now it is best, in this matter, to come to close quarters,
and to deal with a definite member of the Church -- namely, with the Head. If the
Church is visible at all, it must have a visible Head, at least as visible as
the body itself. It is the essential business of the head to speak and direct.
It controls the body, according to certain divine laws. It secures to the whole
unity of thought and of action. Without its presence and influence the members
must either fall into dissolution or destroy one another. Where, then, is the
visible Head of the Catholic Church? For a thousand years the English people professed. with one accord, the Pope
to be their religious Head. They acknowledged one centre of authority, the See
of Peter; were led by one Supreme Shepherd, the successor of Peter; and they
were consequently united, by the profession of the same Faith and Sacraments, in
one religion, with the whole of Christendom.

There is one passage, so aptly
setting forth the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in a letter from King Edward
II., A.D. 1314, directed to the Sacred College of Cardinals, during the vacancy
of the Holy See, that I quote it not only for its own intrinsic merit, but as
showing the belief of the English nation.

"When Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, had consummated the
mystery of man's redemption, and was about to return to
His Father, lest He should leave the flock He had bought with the price of His Blood bereft of the government of a shepherd,
He delivered over and entrusted the care of it, by an immutable ordinance, to
Blessed Peter the Apostle, and in his person to his
successors, the Roman Pontiffs, that they may govern it in succession. He willed
that the Roman Church, who, for the time, presiding as the Mother and Mistress
of all the faithful, holds, as it were, the place of God upon earth, should by
salutary teachings direct the peoples of the said flock, scattered over the
whole world, in the way of salvation, and show them at all times, how they
should 'behave themselves in the house of God' " (Wilkins, volume 2, page
450).

Three hundred years earlier King Edward the Confessor notifies in a solemn
charter the extraordinary devotion which the English people had ever had towards
St. Peter and his successors:

And three hundred years before that, again, Bede was teaching and writing
that "Whosoever shall separate himself in any way whatsoever from the unity
of Peter's faith, and from his communion, can neither obtain pardon of his sins
nor admission into heaven." (Hom 37, Giles).

The lesson of history teaches unmistakably that the unity of the visible Church can be preserved only by its normal union with
its visible Head. The Churches, planted among different and antagonistic races
and tongues -- for instance, the French, the German, the Italian, the English
Churches -- are all one in Faith and the Sacraments, through their submission to
the See of Peter.

So long as the spiritual authority and headship of the Pope was recognised by
the English people, they remained united in creed and religion. It was not
Canterbury, but Rome that was the source and the touchstone of unity. Though
after the apostacy of the sixteenth century the names of the old sees were
retained, with their accumulated wealth, their extensive patronage, their State
protection, Canterbury and the rest of them were unable to hold the English
people in unity of faith and practice for a single generation. Though backed up by the sovereign and the whole legislative power of England,
and by a code of the most drastic penal laws, they were speedily reduced to the
pitiable condition of seeing the people fall away from them in all directions.
The nation that had been conspicuous for its religious unity during a thousand
years became, from the moment it rejected the authority of the Holy See, a
by-word throughout Europe for religious rebellion and sporadic dissent.

Had
there been, as we are assured by some, no essential change in religion, but only
a healthy reform and a purification from errors and abuses, how came it to pass
that this purified and perfected religion began its career by falling into
discredit with the people of England, and to such an extent that religious
dissent has become quite as characteristic of the last 300 years in England, as
religious unity and peace had been of all the preceding ages of our history? I will only add that the leaders of the
Established Church need not throw the
blame of this upon the English people. Had the various countries of the
Continent, which are still united in one faith, withdrawn, like England, from
the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, they too, like England, would long since
have been similarly torn to pieces by religious strife and discord.

The recent
revival of Catholic doctrines and practices in the Church of England is very
wonderful. It is a hopeful sign. It is a testimony to the patristic dictum that
the human mind is "naturally Christian." It exhibits a yearning, and a turning
of the mind and heart towards the Catholic Church. It is a national clearing the
way for something more, and is to be regarded as a grace from above. It may be
all this; but it is not yet obedience and submission to the Divine Teacher.

A whole cycle of Catholic doctrines might be picked out one by one and strung
together, and passionately professed, upon grounds of private judgment; but
that is not submission. It is one thing to recognise that the pasture is sweet
and wholesome, and another thing to recognise and to obey the voice of the
Shepherd.

Goats may enter into the pastures of the sheep, and may select at will
the herbs, the grasses and clovers they most
fancy, and may doubtless deem them sweet and delicious; but this does not
constitute them sheep of the fold. The sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd
and they follow Him. He
chooses the pastures; He leads His sheep into them. The relations of sheep and
Shepherd correspond to those of disciple and Teacher. And hence it is clear that
no one ought to be received into the Catholic Church unless he come into the
fold through the gate, of which Peter, the chief shepherd, is the keeper.

Indeed, I may add, that people who, through negligence or inadvertence, have
been admitted into the Church without having mastered the fundamental doctrine
that they are to be disciples and learners of a living Divine Teacher, are apt,
upon encountering temptation, scandal, contradiction, or disappointment, to
leave her. They had indeed been within the fold, but they were not of it,
because they had never really recognised the Shepherd.

A word on two classes of difficulties raised against the Catholic Church by
her professional opponents. First, intellectual difficulties: no doctrine is
free from them, not even the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
Difficulties arise from the limitation of our faculties, from mists of
ignorance, from prejudices, antipathies, and sinful conduct. The sun is shining,
but we see it not while dense fogs or clouds and storms interpose between it and
ourselves. We see it not when our vision has become gravely affected, or when we
close our eyes. It is a common practice with the opponents of the Catholic
Church to endeavour to hold souls back by arraigning before them a multitude of
difficulties and objections against the doctrines of the Church. To this two
things may be said.

First, it would be easy to string together a most formidable array of difficulties
quoted and examined by Catholic theologians in their great scientific works on
theology. But it is obvious that it would be necessary to be a trained theologian, or to
spend a lifetime in research, were it needful to give detailed answers to them all.
Then there are works, like those of Dr. Littledale and others, written in order
to blind and mislead:
made up of calumnies, misquotations, and a calculated admixture of truth and
error. These are often intended to shock and alienate the moral sense quite as
much as the intellectual. If they do not finally succeed in this, at least they
may succeed in creating perplexity, anxiety, and delay.

Now, instead of entering into a maze of objections, into a labyrinth of
difficulties, a shorter and more satisfactory course should be taken. Find the Divine
Teacher, find the Supreme Shepherd, find the Vicar of Christ. Concentrate all
your mental and moral faculties upon finding the Head of God's Church upon
earth. This is the key to
the situation. The learned work to which these words serve as introduction is
intended to aid this inquiry, by setting forth for this doctrine various of its
reasonable motives of credibility. If only you find the Divine Teacher, you may
leave all objections to the doctrines he teaches to answer themselves. And if
you find him not, then answers to the difficulties brought against his teaching
will go for little.

Secondly, moral difficulties have to be met -- in-grained
antipathies, traditional prejudices, fears and anxieties: fear to offend and
grieve parents, guides, and loved ones; fear of temporal consequences, loss of
station, of influence, of fortune, possibly poverty and want; anxieties as to
whether the call be of God, whether to trust Him without clear insight into the
future; perplexities as to the difference between the motives of credibility and
the divine certainty of faith.

All these are very real and sharp trials; but these, or others, are to be
expected, for it is said,

"Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in
justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation. Humble thy heart, and endure; incline thy ear, and receive the
words of understanding, and make not haste in the
time of clouds. Wait on God with patience; join thyself to God and endure, that thy life
may be increased in the end." (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 2)

Faith is a gift of God. No man can acquire faith by study alone, as by his
own skill.

"No man can come to Me, unless it be given him by My Father." (John
6:65)

Or to quote the Council of Trent:

"If any man saith that without the prevenient
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without His help, man can believe, hope,
love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of justification
may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema." (Session 6)

The motives of
credibility which may be learnt by reading and study do not produce the absolute
and perfect certainty of faith. They lead a man to see that the objects of faith
are worthy of belief; they show him that he is under an obligation to give to
them the assent of faith. But it is grace, it is God who inspires the soul
with the pious inclination to believe, the "pia affectio ad credendum."
The certainty
of faith rests, not indeed upon the motives of credibility, or upon facts or
arguments that may or may not be evident in themselves, but upon the veracity of
God Who has revealed them.

Or as the Vatican Council defines it:

"Faith is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by
the grace of God, we believe that the things which He has revealed are true;
not because of the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed by the natural light
of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself Who reveals them, and
Who can neither deceive nor be deceived."

And again:

"Though the assent of faith is by no means a blind action of the
mind, still no man can assent to the Gospel teaching as necessary to obtain
salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Who
gives to all men sweetness in assenting to and in believing the truth.
Wherefore, faith itself, even when it does not work by charity [Galatians
5:6], is in itself a gift from God, and the act of faith is a work
appertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedience to God
Himself, by assenting to and cooperating with His grace, which he is able to
resist."

And further on the same Council declares:

"That we may be able to satisfy the obligation of embracing the
true faith and of constantly persevering in it, God has instituted the
Church....which both invites to itself those who do not yet believe, and
assures its children that the faith which they profess rests on the most firm
foundation; and its testimony is efficaciously supported by a power from on
high. For our merciful Lord gives His grace to stir up and to aid those who
are astray, that they may come to a knowledge of the truth; and to those whom
He has brought out of the darkness into His own admirable light He gives His
grace to strengthen them to persevere in that light, deserting none who desert
not Him." (Cap, De Fide)

All this shows that the assent of faith is concerned with the will as well as
with the intellect, and that a man who is seeking to come to a knowledge of that
article of faith which declares that God has left a Divine Teacher to guide men
safely in the affairs of salvation, must give himself to prayer and to humble
repentence and contrition as much as to study and to reading.

"The prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds, and
he will not depart till the Most High behold." (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach]
35)

HERBERT CARDINAL VAUGN, Archbishop of Westminster

AUTHOR'S PREFACE (BY LUKE RIVINGTON)

The particular theory opposed in this book lies at the root of the controversy which we are forced to carry on with our Anglican friends on the subject of Church
government at the present moment. It is the theory of the lawful independence of National Churches. Even the Magna Charta has been enlisted in the service of this theory by so able and respected a writer as Lord Selborne. The expression "Let the Anglican Church be free" is held by his Lordship to express the determination of the Church of England in that century to be independent of Papal jurisdiction.
[1] The present jurisdiction of the See of Canterbury is referred to the general question of the independence of National Churches by so eminent a writer as Dr. Stubbs.
[2] Mr. Gore goes so far as to deduce from the teaching of St. Cyprian the fundamental independence of each bishop in the whole world.
[3] And the present Archbishop of Canterbury writes that the "individual independence of elected bishops" was the Cyprianic doctrine, but that it is applicable only to "States which have not that intimate union with the Church which the ideal of a Christian nation requires."
[4] In other words, the ideal condition, according to his Grace, is the independence, not of each bishop, but of each national Church. And this was certainly the doctrine of some of the most eminent teachers in the Establishment in previous centuries, as for instance, Bishop Overall, the author of part of the Catechism in the Church of England Prayerbook.
[5]

And this ideal of independence is asserted to be the teaching of history, the natural outcome of the principles which are to be discovered especially in the primitive Church.
There, we are told, there was no dependence on Rome; there was no shadow of centralisation to be seen;
there, if the Pope comes at times to the front, it is as the occupant of a See, great by reason of its relation to the empire, not because of
any special relation to the Apostolic College. It was with this ideal of independence that, according to Dean Church, the Oxford movement was in special and profound
sympathy. [6]

In the following pages, the doctrine set forth by John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his famous letter to
King Edward the First, as that of the Church of England, is maintained as the teachimg of the primitive
Church. [7] It is, of course, perfectly true that Magna Charta spoke of the Anglican Church being free; but the freedom claimed and granted was not from the authority of the Pope, but from the lawlessness of the
king -- in a word, it involved, amongst other things, freedom to appeal, when necessary, to
Rome. [8] "The Anglican Church" at that time signified a religious body in the closest communion with Rome, and under her obedience in spiritual matters. For in that same Charter, the Archbishop of Canterbury is called a Cardinal
of the Holy Roman Church, and the next words to those quoted by Lord Selborne proclaim the fact that the confirmation of
"the lord Pope Innocent"' had been "obtained" for this very
matter. [9] It is maintained in this book that the close communion with
Rome which the Church of England thus avowed, and which it cherished during all those centuries from St. Augustine to the sixteenth century, is a principle deeply embedded in the life of the primitive Church.

But when we say that Papal supremacy is found deeply embedded in the life of the primitive Church, what do we exactly mean? No one who appeals to the primitive Church professes to
find in her actual life a literal transcript of his own present position. National Churches certainly did not exist in Europe; it would be hard to say what could be included under the national Church of Rome. The appeal must be to something else than a primitive presentation of the form and outward appearance of
any system in the nineteenth century. What, then, do we ourselves mean when we say that the Papal
regime was in existence in the earliest beginnings of Christianity? The question really is as to whether the alleged counterpart in the early Church differs from its successor in the present, in substance, in principle, in essential features.

Is the difference, for instance, between the Papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? Does
the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?

On meeting some one whom we have not seen since his childhood we are often constrained to exclaim,
"I should never have known it to be you!" Yet it is the same person whom Almighty God brought into the world as an infant, whose powers and appearance have thus developed. This
simile of the child and the grown man, as well as that of the oak and the acorn, was adopted in regard to the Church by St. Vincent of Lerins, the author of the formula (though not of the truth) of the
"always, everywhere, and by all," as a test of truth not yet defined.

And yet an idea has taken hold of many minds to the effect that when Dr. Newman wrote his book nearly fifty years ago, now called
"The Development of Christian Doctrine," he was striking out a new
theory, [10] instead of merely illustrating, with that force which belonged to the greatest religious genius of this country, the theory on which the Church has always proceeded in teaching Christian history. His first title may be thought to countenance the idea; but the second corrects it. And St. Vincent of Lerins is a
sufficient witness that the theory which Cardinal Newman so expanded and illustrated was not new even in the fifth century.

Dr. Dollinger only reflected the general teaching of the Church when he wrote, sixty years ago, with his usual felicity of expression, the following passage:

"Like all other essential parts of the constitution of the Church, the supremacy was known and acknowledged from the beginning as a divine institution, but it required time to unfold its faculties; it assumed by degrees the determined form in which the Bishop of Rome exercised systematically the authority entrusted to him for the preservation of the internal and external unity of the
Church." [11]

And some years afterwards the same writer says of the Papacy:

"Its birth begins with two mighty, pregnant, and far-reaching words of the Lord. He to whom these words are
addressed realises them in his person and in his acts, and transplants the
institute to which he has been appointed into the centre of the infant Church, to the Roman capital itself. Here it grows up in silence,
occulto velut arbor aevo; and in the earliest times it manifests itself only in particular traits, till the outlines of the ecclesiastical power and action of the Bishop of Rome become ever clearer and more definite. Already even in the times of the Roman Empire the Popes are the guardians of the whole
Church." [12]

I venture to call this view of the matter more in accord with history than that proposed by the respected writer to whom I have
alluded, [13] which in effect prescinds all real development from the action of the Papacy, if it is to be acknowledged as of divine institution.

It is the repudiation of the necessity of a real development which seems to me the greatest blot in book which appeared last year under the auspices of the Bishop of Lincoln, who has made himself responsible for its general accuracy as well as its thesis. I have incorporated in this book an answer to the main points of that work. I have not,
however, included an account of the Acacian troubles, because I have dealt with these elsewhere;
[14] but, in point of fact, the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (with which this book closes) is such as to establish the fact that the law of Christian life is communion with Rome, and any seeming exceptions must be treated as such, and must not be quoted as establishing a principle of action in the future. To the history of that council I venture to
draw the especial attention of the reader, because I am not aware of any English work that contains as full an account of
its various acts. And it is only by seeing certain expressions in their context that their full value can be gauged, as establishing, not what St. Leo claimed (though that has its value),
but what the Church at large received without consciousness of novelty or usurpation.
I have sometimes referred the reader to the original of Dr. Dollinger's writings, but more often to the English translation, since the former is much less accessible than the latter.

I have, in conclusion, to thank his Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster for so kindly enriching this volume with an introduction, and the Censor Deputatus, Father Sydney Smith, S.J., for going beyond the necessities of his office in the way of many helpful suggestions.

NOTE -- Since the above lines were written, a book has appeared [15]
by the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford, containing a chapter on
"Papalism and Antiquity," which consists for the most part of a critique on a book of mine published in 1889.
[16] Lest the following pages (especially the last two hundred) should seem a miracle of anticipation, I may as well say that the chapter in Canon Bright's work, to which I allude, is a reproduction or recension of an anonymous article by that writer in the
"Church Quarterly Review" for October 1889, characterised by much bitterness against the
"Church of Rome," calling it an atmosphere of untruthfulness.

I do not propose to descend into the arena of vituperation and invective. But I am able to say that the following pages contain a
direct answer to most of the arguments advanced in Canon Bright's "Papalism and
Antiquity." For after reading his article in the "Church
Quarterly," when it appeared in 1889, I came to the conclusion that there was need of a fuller account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon than has yet been given in English, with special reference to the points urged in that article, and now repeated in Canon Bright's recension of the same. It rarely falls to the lot of a writer to be able to produce an answer to such representations of history as Canon Bright proposes in his new book, within a
few weeks of their appearance. But it is my good fortune to have been able to do this through the accident of having selected the original draft for particular refutation. I would draw especial attention to the treatment of the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, on pages
437-449, as meeting one of Canon Bright's chief points. [17]

But I feel bound to add a few words here on one passage in Canon Bright's chapter on Papalism, referring to this very
subject. [18] The Regius Professor says (p. 234),

"When Mr. Rivington tells us that 'nothing more transpired concerning the canon, and it was
omitted from the authorised collection of canons even in the East,' he omits, and it is no small
omission -- it is a real suppressio veri -- to say after Hefele that the Greeks did not adhere to the profession made by Anatolius, and that his successors continued to act as patriarchs
under the terms of the new canon, with the full approval of their emperors, and in despite of the protests of
Rome."

Will it be believed that Canon Bright has altered my words by a most important, nay, crucial omission? My words are
("Dependence," p. 60),

"Nothing more transpired concerning the canon. No further appeal was
made to it at that time, and it was omitted from the authorised collection of canons even in the
East."

Now this statement is absolutely true. Hefele, to whom Canon Bright appeals, says the same:

"From that time Leo continued to exchange letters with Anatolius, and his successor Gennadius, but there was nothing more said between them on the subject of the twenty-eighth
Canon." (History of the Councils, 207)

But Canon Bright has omitted the all-important words, which I have placed in italics, and thus made my statement refer to the future instead of the present
only. The strangest part of the matter is that in his anonymous article, of which he calls this chapter a
"recension" (cf. Preface, p. vii), the words I have italicised above appear in their right place, and he there accuses me only of
"going near to supressio veri" (Church Quarterly Review, October 1889, p. 133); whereas now, having in his
"recension" omitted the crucial words of my statement, he accuses me downright of that form of literary dishonesty.

But, further, I had actually said on the same page, "What Constantinople did was to continue its
encroachments." And on the next page but one (p. 62) I have given an instance of an attempt to revive the
canon, and of the emperor's fruitless endeavour to induce Rome to recognise it. How, then, can Canon Bright say
that I even suppressed this?

Nor is this writer correct in saying, "It is all very well to talk of
'the canon invalidated,' i.e. from the Papal stand-point, but it is the canon which has practically
prevailed." The canon was invalidated from the high Anglican standpoint; for as Le Quien
("Oriens Christianus," p. 51) points out, a canon, to be a canon of the whole Church, must be accepted by the
West. This was repudiated by the West. Even the Illyrians did not sign. And when, centuries after, Constantinople was allowed to take precedence of other Eastern sees, it was not on account of this canon; and in the previous centuries it was not the canon
that prevailed, but unjustifiable encroachments. Does Canon Bright imagine that a canon passed under such disgraceful circumstances as I have described below (cf. p. 440)
-- dropped by the archbishop and emperor in whose reign it was proposed -- could override the Nicene settlement? The Pope said, No. And when Acacius came on to the scene and acted on the canon, it was to place heretics, who opposed the doctrine of the Incarnation, as defined at Chalcedon, in the Eastern
sees -- heretics like Peter the Fuller at Alexandria.

Canon Bright, in the same paragraph, quotes Liberatus against me; but my account altogether agrees with that of Liberatus, who in the same chapter speaks of the
"usurpations" of Anatolius, and in the passage quoted by Canon Bright is stigmatising the Erastianism and encroachments that went on under the pretext of that canon, and in the following chapter describes the usurpations of the heretic Acacius
("detectus hereticus"). [19] In fact this whole passage in Canon Bright's book is, I regret to say, a tissue of misrepresentations, his accusation of
suppressio veri being actually supported by omitting the very line which
confines my statement to the present, whilst the truth supposed to be suppressed is concerned with the future.

L. R.

THE PRESBYTERY, SPANISH PLACE, LONDON, W.

March 30, 1894.

NOTES

[1] A Defence of the Church of England, by Roundell, Earl of Selborne, 4th ed, 1888. He lays emphasis on the expression "Anglican" as though it involved independence of Rome, p. 9.
[2] Eastern Church Association Papers, No. 1. [3] R.C.
Claims, p. 117, 3rd ed. [4] Dict of Chr Biog (Smith and Wace), art. "Cyprian."
[5] See the thesis of his Convocation Book. [6]Oxford
Movement, p. 211. He also quotes (p. 47) Hurrell Froude's saying (Remains, edited by J. Keble), viz.
"Let us give up a National Church, and have a real one," i.e. if a national Church means lack of discipline. Dean Church
thinks that the Oxford movement purged the national Church of its deeper faults.
[7] See quotation from this letter, infra, p. 381. [8] Hume says that by
Magna Charta "all checks were removed." He is speaking of appeals to Rome.
[9] Viz. concerning the election of bishops. [10] Cf. Canon
Bright's Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers (Preface), where
he assumes this. [11]Geschichte der christlichen Kirche (1835),
volume 1, p. 365. [12]The Church and the Churches, p. 31. Eng. trans.
[13] Bright's Lessons, &c. [14] In the Dublin Review for April 1894, where I have shown that communion between Rome and the East was not broken off at
that time, but only suspended in some of its effects, and that consequently no argument can be derived from the existence of sanctity in some members of the Eastern Church.
[15]Waymarks in Church History, by W. Bright, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical
History, 1894. [16]Dependence; or the Insecurity of the Anglican
Position by Rev. Luke Rivington, M.A. (Kegan Paul, Trench & Co, 1889). [17]
This canon is cherished as suggesting that Rome's primacy was due to her secular position alone.
[18] His accusation of "carelessness" on p. 227 will be seen by reference to p. 409
infra to be based on a misinterpretation of the passage as a whole. [19]Breviarium, cap. xviii.